Ex parte HORSTMANN et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1997-3241                                                        
          Application 08/442,726                                                      

          into the claims.  In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,               
          5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).  In analyzing the scope of the claim,                   
          office personnel must rely on the Appellants' disclosure to                 
          properly determine the meaning of terms used in the claims.                 
          Markman v.  Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d               
          1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir.)(in banc), aff'd, U.S., 116 S. Ct. 1384               
          (1996).  An applicant is entitled to be his or her own                      
          lexicographer, and in many instances will provide an explicit               
          definition for certain terms used in the claims.  Where an                  
          explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term,                
          that definition will control interpretation of the term as it               
          is used in the claim. Office personnel should determine if the              
          original disclosure provides a definition consistent with any               
          assertions made by applicant.  See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30                 
          F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.                            
          1994)(inventor may define specific terms used to describe                   
          invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity,                         
          deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out                 
          his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007